Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Interested In More Linux Deals
eldavojohn writes "Microsoft has announced that it would be open to more deals similar to the one it just made with Novell. 'We will love to put that kind of agreement in place with anyone who distributes Linux software, Red Hat, whoever else,' Steve Ballmer told India's Economic Times. Considering the recent reactions to the Microsoft Novell deal, it would be interesting to see who else takes them up on the offer. Novell is due to receive USD $348 million in up-front payments. Will Red Hat cash out on this offer if it feels the impending pressure from Oracle's Linux? Will non-profit Linux distributions attempt to make deals with Microsoft?"
"We will love to put that kind of agreement in place with anyone [everyone] who distributes Linux software, Red Hat, whoever [everyone] else," Steve Ballmer told India's Economic Times.
Way too obvious.
"Mr Ballmer, on a visit to India, said that while he believed software would be increasingly downloaded and managed off the internet,"
As in apt-get?
""I would say we are moving to a world where there is a lot more electronic distribution. It is a new style of software, not the old-style distributed electronically.""
He's obviously not taking his meds - as in the 'raise my IQ above that of a carot' pill he must need each morning to get out the door.
"The next frontier for us is to embrace a new business model. And if we embrace it well and that business model is subscription and advertising,"
Curious that he left out 'make good software' and 'support'...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Microsoft has always "gotten it".
When competition becomes serious, "embrace and extend." This is exactly what MS's outlandish purchases in the 90s were about, and it seems they just forgot about it for a while (and were probably concerned about antitrust).
Meet the new Microsoft... same as the old Microsoft.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Now, can any slashdoter tell me why this deal is really bad and should be avoided?
I'm not saying either of those things - but I don't have the warm and fuzzies over this. Why? Because there is no immediate answer to the most obvious question; What does Microsoft believe they are getting for their 348 million dollars?
I mean - they ponied up a third of a bill so that you'd be protected from lawsuits...from them. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to - say - not sue? I'd have to double-check my figures; but I'm pretty sure that will cost you nothing.
They're getting something out of this (or at least they believe they are), and if you've directly benefited, then it's reasonable to believe that it's costing you something as well (TNSTAAFL).
Maybe it's a good trade, maybe not, but Microsoft has earned a certain reputation among this audience.
Time, and the trust of Linux users other than myself, will tell.
Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
Linux can't be buried in the same way that a proprietary piece of software can, granted, but I think that Microsoft thinks that it can be buried -- or at least made irrelevant -- through use of software patents.
Basically, you engage in Novell-like patent cross-licensing deals with all the major Linux manufacturers, and push them towards one distribution ("MSLinux"). You drop hints about possible liability if anyone uses non-licensed distributions, discouraging their adoption and funding. Plus, you create a lot of proprietary, MSLinux-only 'compatibility extensions' that let it work with Windows. In the end, once "MSLinux" has captured a significant portion of the market, you cut of its air supply and let it die. This leaves people with little choice but to migrate to Windows, since the other Linux distributions are either perceived to be dangerous (due to patent landmines) or have simply been neglected and underfunded for so long, that they can no longer compete.
It's not a total endgame against Linux, but it's a pretty significant move. The GPL prohibits Linux from ever being killed completely (particularly outside the U.S.); but if you get enough software patents, it might be basically impossible to use in any significant, competitive way, without opening oneself up to legal problems.
The real unknown variable in all this is where IBM stands. They're obviously pro-Linux, but their support is generally indirect. You don't see them buying or operating their own Linux flavor or distribution outright. I wonder if Microsoft started buying up the competition, and the field started to narrow, would IBM jump in and pick up one of the players?
IIRC, the Linux desktop that IBM was going to deploy companywide (which would have been significant in itself, they have something like 300k employees) was a RHEL derivative. I wonder if they have some relationship with RH that would make them a likely buyout, or at least patent cross-licensing target?
That would be interesting; Novell and Microsoft and their patents on one side, and Red Hat and IBM on another, with the biggest repository of patents in the U.S. That would be an interesting showdown.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."